Veteran movie producer and creative industries campaigner David Puttnam talks exclusively to Gamesblog about his involvement with videogames

Throughout the 80s, David Puttnam was one of Britain’s most powerful and successful film producers, responsible for a string of hits including Chariots of Fire, Midnight Express and The Killing Fields. However, during the following decade, he became increasingly frustrated with the pressures of popularism, penning the incendiary The Undeclared War about Hollywood’s grip on the movie business and effectively retiring from the film industry in 1998.

He has since become a highly active campaigner on behalf of Britain’s creative industries – including videogames. Having chaired independent funding body, NESTA (National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts) through the 90s, Lord Puttnam has recently teamed up with games industry trade association TIGA to help with Play Together, an initiative that seeks to foster collaboration and communication between the games industry and other creative industries, including film. Lord Puttnam is also vice-chairman of a recently established All-Party Parliamentary Group, supported by TIGA, which aims to, “raise and discuss key [videogame] industry issues amongst interested Parliamentarians”.

A key ambition is to push for the sorts of tax initiatives currently benefitting games makers in other countries, notably Canada. It would seem the group has already been modestly successful, with the news last week that the government has asked TIGA to provide evidence to support a ‘culturally British’ tax break for UK games production.

Lord Puttnam spoke to me about his interest in videogames, and about how the government must act to ensure the ongoing health of the UK industry. Here is the first part of that interview …

How did you get involved with NESTA?
I was involved from about 1992. I was working on the Labour party manifesto for the “creative industries” as they became known, and what emerged time and again was the lack of connectivity between arts, science and technology. We were in a sense revisiting CP Snow’s thesis that art and science were in some respects incompatible, whereas in reality, looking at the likely challenges of the 21st century economy, there was an overwhelming need for them to be increasingly connected. So we set out to see what could be done to bind these two together, and what emerged was NESTA.

In fact, NESTA started out as NESA – technology was added rather at the last minute – but it was always intended to be a way of drawing together the arts and the sciences based, to an extent on what I had experienced during my brief stint on the ESRC. It was there I became aware of how damaging and unnecessary this separation could be. Immediately after Labour won the 1997 election it quickly moved from being an idea to a policy commitment; and from there to a reality within 18 months. I was then summoned back at the last minute – the original nominee having became unavailable – to become the inaugural chair, where I remained for the next five years.

What were the practical aims of NESTA from the beginning?
Well, the first big negotiation obviously was how to legislate for an “endowment”, Britain had never had one so we were the very first. The treasury has always been, and probably still is, extremely resistant to the notion. In America they are almost the norm, but HM Treasury do not see endowments as the best possible use of money – although I think that’s an attitude that has more to do with a “loss of control” than anything else.

So first of all we had a job to do on the treasury, then there was an issue of how significant the endowment should be – it was eventually delivered in two tranches. And then there was the business – the very interesting exercise – of setting something up from scratch; the nature and powers of the trustees, and all the rest of it. In the end a short Bill went through parliament creating NESTA along with one or two other statutory bodies.

It was an exciting, and in hindsight a really rather remarkable time.

You’re also very much involved with the videogame side of thing – you believe that the videogame industry should be more heavily supported by government?
My own belief is that the sector should get significantly more support, particularly at the entry and training level – that’s where I’d like to see most of the support concentrated.

I’m also trying to persuade people within the interactive entertainment industry that the role they are playing, and the role that the games they develop are playing, could be far more significant in British cultural life. By its very nature, the potential of “interactivity” within the entertainment and the learning space is enormous. It seems to me that at present we are only scratching the surface.

Obviously there’s a growing interest in serious games and I take it that’s the sector that interests you?
“Obsessed” would be a more accurate way of expressing it!

A few established game publishers, Blitz Games in Leamington for example, have already embraced this sector, haven’t they?
This is a world that’s slowly moving in from the fringes to become quite mainstream. When I first went to see Sony about the possibility of them getting more involved in education through the development of serious games, I was all but thrown out of their office. I think Ray McGuire would confirm what I’m telling you. Happily, today he’s one of the leading proponents of the potential of serious games.

What was his original resistance to the idea?
Oh it was very simple – I remember the conversation very well.
He patiently explained that games are what people do when they get out of school! “They can’t wait to get out of school in order to get their hands on ‘games’ – we don’t even want to mention school – we are the antidote!”

So the most widely held belief saw the two things as operating in opposition to each other. Ray could tell you about his own journey in this respect. I’m very fond of him. He’s a real star.

Are you interested in the mainstream games industry? Are you a gamer?
Only in a rather pathetic way! I have two grand-daughters who are excellent, and if I want to make a complete fool of myself, I challenge them at which point, no matter what we are playing, I invariably manage to make a total fool of myself.

Do they have a Nintendo Wii?
No, we’ve got an Xbox and a PlayStation.

What are your hopes for the all-party group for videogaming, which you’re a part of?
Well, it’s all part of a continuum; if I’d have been around in the 1920s I’d like to think I would have been an inaugural member of the all-party group for the film industry. Certainly I was a vocal advocate for the creation of a select committee in the Lords, which we now have under Lord Fowler, looking at the whole world of communications.

What I hope we’ll achieve with this new committee is the overdue political legitimacy of the games industry; to get a level of informed parliamentary understanding of interactive games – both in terms of their creative potential and the extraordinary levels of income generated by the sector. Most parliamentarians don’t have a clue as regards the challenges or the opportunities the games industry faces. If for example, they had a full understanding of the levels of support the Canadians offer their industry they would, I’m sure, fall off their chairs!

What do you think about the videogame courses at British universities? They’ve been accused of churning out “Jack of all trade, master of none” students. Do you agree?
In my experience that type of broad brush criticism is normally wrong.
I well remember a decade or so ago when media studies courses were being given a terrible rap for being over generalist generalist and insufficiently “robust”. It was was only when you started looking beyond graduation, at the employability of the people that had taken those courses, did you discover that – surprise, surprise – the media studies graduates were getting jobs that no one else was getting – it was in fact one of the most productive routes into employment that universities were offering. So that particular criticism evaporated.

There’s always a miasma of misinformation emerging from the higher education sector as to which are the “best” courses to take. My advice would always be to ignore the perceived wisdom and look for the most reliable evidence on the ground.